You use your cell phone for work? In a potentially important Title III opinion, the Fifth Circuit limits the territorial reach of cellphone interception in United States v. Richard North. In part: “[A] district court cannot authorize interception of cell phone calls when neither the phone nor the listening post is present within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.”

The ABA White-Collar Crime Committee often produces good materials, and of course it hosts the annual Institute on White-Collar Crime. Here is the most recent ABA White-Collar Crime Committee Newsletter.

From Professor Susan Brenner at Cyb3rCrim3: Once again, in a dispute between a company and a former employee — The Shit-Canned Laptop — under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal district court finds that the narrow interpretation of “exceeds access” is the appropriate understanding of the statute. The court in Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 2013 WL 3810859 (2013), recognized a split between what is cast as a broad versus a narrow interpretation of the term `without authorization.’ Under the narrow view, an employee given access to a work computer is authorized to access that computer regardless of his or her intent to misuse information and any…

Commercial “suicide” to shield customers’ data. For a white-collar defense lawyer, do the ethics of confidentiality-protection require encryption of communications with one’s client?http://t.co/ssCdRUq5Rf. The “Silent Circle” technology is intriguing. At trial, would encryption be admissible as evidence of intent?